ID: nht76-5.48

DATE: 09/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. J. Hurlbutt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations prohibit the installation, by a dealer, of a rear seat in a 1976 Chevrolet Blazer.

Federal regulations do not prohibit such installation by a dealer. If a dealer installs a seat prior to first purchase of the vehicle, the seat must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, 49 CFR 571.207.

In this case, you have already taken possession of your vehicle and desire that the dealer now install the seat. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This does not prohibit a dealer from installing seats in a vehicle that has already been purchased. It simply means that such installation cannot destroy the vehicle's compliance with any motor vehicle safety standard.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

SINCERELY,

Hugh Oates, Attorney National Highway Traffic Safety Bureau

August 13, 1976

Ref: motor vehicle seat installation regulations

I would like to thank you for your time and interest during our conversation last week.

On May 10, 1976, I took delivery of my factory order 1976 Chevrolet Blazer. I ordered this vehicle with a rear seat, but the seat was left off the order form by the salesman. I took delivery of the vehicle only on the salesman's assurance that the seat could be ordered and installed at the dealership. Several weeks later, when I went back to check on the progress, I was informed by both salesman and parts manager that it was against Federal Safety Regulations for a dealership to install the seat. The dealer "restated" this position to me again on August 9, 1976. The dealer did, however, offer to help locate a used seat through a salvage yard and install it. I think that you would agree that this is a very confusing situation.

I would request your staff to follow whatever course they deem reasonable. I would also ask for a written opinion from you in regard to the Federal Regulations. I would appreciate this orinion as soon as possible.

Thanking you in advance for your expected help and co-operation, I am, Robert J. Hurlbutte

ID: nht76-5.49

DATE: 04/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: HON. M. L. Esch - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Secretary of Transportation has asked me to respond to your March 16, 1976, request for all information submitted to him since December 31, 1975, concerning the safety and economic feasibility of air cushion restraint systems or, in the alternative, the specific basis for withholding particular documents. We interpret your request to include documents submitted to the Office of the Secretary or to the public docket on passive restraints.

All materials concerning the safety and economic feasibility of air cushion systems that have been placed in the public docket are enclosed. These documents include all material on air cushion systems provided to the Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and Technology and to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Consumer Affairs during their recent visits to General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation. Films submitted to the docket that support this material are available for viewing at your request.

The NHTSA has provided material to the Office of the Secretary that discusses the value of requiring passive restraints in motor vehicles. All of this material consists of intra-agency memoranda that contain the opinions of agency staff on the considerations underlying a decision concerning passive restraints. The preparation of this material involved choosing and weighing data and making certain assumptions. I conclude that it is important to have full and free staff input to this decision-making process. Accordingly, I deny your request for this information pursuant to the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for intra-agency memoranda (5. U.S.C. @ 552(b)(5)). I am the person responsible for this decision.

Pursuant to the Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 7), this decision, to the extent information you seek is not released, may be appealed to John Hart Ely, Esq., General Counsel of the Department, whose decision will be administratively final. Your application for reconsideration must be made in writing within sixty days from the date of receipt of the original denial and must include all information and arguments relied upon in your original request. Such application must indicate that it is an appeal from a denial of a request made under the Freedom of Information Act and the envelope in which the application is sent must be prominently marked with the letters "FOIA".

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht76-5.5

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 14, 1976, request for confirmation that seat belt webbing with one woven selvage and one knitted selvage qualifies as "webbing", as that term is defined in paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The definition of "webbing" in Standard No. 209 does not specify that selvages must be woven. Rather, the definition only specifies that selvages be "finished", for the purpose of ensuring that the webbing will not ravel. We conclude that the new webbing you submitted, with one woven and one knitted selvage, has "finished selvages" and would qualify as "webbing" within the meaning of Standard No. 209.

ID: nht76-5.50

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ROHR Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Rohr Industries' April 27, 1976, letter asking how to test an emergency exit that contains no glazing in conformity with the provision of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, that specifies testing before and after a window retention test (S5.3.2.). You also ask whether the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5.1 specify the placement of operating instructions at a designated seating position which does not qualify as an "adjacent seat" under the definition found in S4 of the standard.

The window retention requirement is not required in the case of an emergency exit that contains no glazing. Because this requirement is clearly inapplicable to such an exit, the emergency exit release requirements of S5.3.2 must be met, but without the need to conduct a window retention test.

In answer to your second question, S5.5.1 requires that a label indicating the location of the nearest exit release mechanism be placed at "adjacent seats" to any exit whose release mechanism is not located within the occupant space of that adjacent seat. There are no labeling requirements in S5.5.1 for seating that is not "adjacent" to the exit. As you note, some interior configurations result in seating whose "occupant space" is not within 10 inches of any emergency exit (measured as set forth in S4). Such seating would not have to be labeled with the location of the nearest release mechanism, although some manufacturers do provide this information voluntarily. The agency has evaluated a requirement for this labeling but considers present labelling practices adequate at this time.

SINCERELY,

April 27, 1976

Robert Williams Office of Crashworthiness National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release

This letter is forwarded in response to your suggestion made during our telephone conversation of April 15, 1976, during which we discussed the interpretation of certain requirements contained in the referenced FMVSS. Our discussion concerned an emergency roof exit installed in an urban transit bus in accordance with paragraph S5.2.1, since the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear emergency exit.

The roof exit under discussion is not a push-out window. No window glazing is involved. It is of a metal-foam-sandwich construction comparable to the surrounding roof. Paragraph S5.3.2 requires each emergency exit allow manual release of the exit "both before and after the window retention test required by S5.1". Clarification of the application of these window retention tests to the non-glazed roof hatch is requested.

a. Is it required that a non-glazed roof emergency exit be subjected to the window retention test specified by paragraphs S5.1?

b. If testing is required, which of the terminating events in S5.1 are applicable when testing a non-window type exit?

c. If testing is required, must the test be accomplished with the vehicle resting on it's side per Figure 3B, Roof Emergency Exit?

During our phone conversation referenced above, you expressed your unofficial interpretations as being that a non-glazed roof emergency exit would be subject to the release force requirements of the standard but not the retention force requirements or testing under S5.1.

Clarification with respect to emergency exit identification is also requested. Paragraph S5.1 states in part -

". . .When a release mechanism is not located within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within that occupant space."

Paragraph S4 defines an "adjacent seat" and "occupant space" in a manner which indicates that a designated seating position is not to be identified as an "adjacent seat" unless some portion of it's occupant space is not more than ten inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least fifteen inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. As you know, certain bus seating configurations are such that some designated seating positions are directly adjoining fixed windows/piar panels (non-glazed areas between windows). These fixed (non-push-out) windows and pier panels are not designed as, nor marked as emergency exits. The occupant space of the adjoining designated seating position is not within ten inches of an emergency exit for a distance of at least fifteen inches measured horizontally and parallel to that exit. Therefore, it is our understanding that these seating positions are not, by definition, adjacent seats.

a. Do these non-adjacent seats adjoining a fixed window or a pier panel require emergency exit location referral labelling under the current edition of FMVSS No. 217?

b. If so, which paragraph specifies such a requirement?

c. If not, has such a requirement been considered?

Here also during our phone conversation previously referenced, you expressed an unofficial opinion that these particular seating positions were not covered by labelling requirements. Please confirm.

Your review of and assistance with above will be greatly appreciated.

R. L. Ratz Safety Engineering Specialist

ID: nht76-5.51

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agency considers Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high seat back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)):

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height that necessitates a height of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under @ 103(d).

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing with armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F. 2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New York State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.

YOURS TRULY,

February 20, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In 1974 the New York State Legislature enacted a law that specified that all seats in school buses having a capacity of more than 11 passengers would have to be 28 inches high effective January 1, 1976. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the adoption of a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 identified as School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and identified it as Section 751.222 of Part 751 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to become effective October 26, 1976, which specifies under S5.1.2 that the seat back height must be 20 inches.

It has been called to our attention that under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect no state or political subdivision shall have any authority, either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. To date we have had differing opinions from representatives of the Federal Department of Transportation as to how we are to interpret this clause. So that we may set the records straight, we would like an official determination from your agency as to whether or not New York State can legally retain the requirement of 28 inch high back seats once the Federal standard dealing with seat back heights becomes effective on October 26, 1976.

Although not specifically addressed in the section dealing with school bus passenger seating and crash protection, we would also like to know whether or not an additional requirement in New York dealing with armrests on all seats in school buses having a seating capacity of more than 11 persons would be considered contrary to the standard. Since the standard does not include provision for armrests, it is possible to interpret it as meaning that armrests are not allowed.

Should you have any question as to what we are attempting to resolve, please feel free to call me on Phone # A.C. 518 - 457-1010, and we would hope to hear from you in the near future as to your reaction to our questions. You can address your reply to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12232.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht76-5.52

DATE: 06/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 and 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.

The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to the requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.

In the case of transit buses "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation," however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in the definition of "school bus" but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of "school bus" did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of "school bus."

As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 18, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

As Chairman of the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority please accept this cover letter to the attached legal request. Let me simply emphasize to you that the question of federal preemption has arisen from all quarters on the State and local level, revelant to our transit authority providing service to the local school board. Your response to our inquiry is of first importance and we appreciate your attention to this matter.

David L. Ryan Chairman

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 17, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority would appreciate an opinion from your office with respect to the use of urban mass transit vehicles in special school route service and school related charter activities.

The Topeka MTA approached the Kansas Legislature in an effort to modify existing and proposed Kansas law so that it would be made clear that our buses can legally provide school related services. Basically our suggestions to the lawmakers would have changed state law so that it was more in line with federal provisions. However, the Director of Highway Safety for the Kansas Department of Transportation contended that the Transit Authority's position was in direct violation of federal law.

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority believes that federal law allows urban mass transit vehicles to work with local school boards in solving their transportation problems. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter by Mr. Merrell, Kansas Director of Highway Safety, and the copy of our letter responding to such a position.

Needless to say, the view taken by the state agency is adversely affecting our revenue from school related services. The publicly supported transit system should be able to provide a variety of public services.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Michael D. Hood Legal Intern

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 15, 1976

The Honorable Don E. Crumbaker Chairman, House Committee on Education

RE: House Education Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 623

Thank you for the opportunity this morning to discuss with you Senate Bill 623. As we discussed, problems arise regarding the amendment contained in Section 10 of the bill. The portion with which we are concerned is contained on page 10, lines 22 through 29, which follows in part;

Sec. 10. K.S.A. 8-2009 is hereby amended to read as follows; 8-2009. (a) All seats on school buses shall be forward-facing . . . except that the secretary may waive such requirement upon the request of a metropolitan transit authority established pursuant to article 28 of chapter 12 of Kansas Statutes Annotated.

The underscored portion above is the amendment added to the bill by House Committee.

The above amendment is in direct violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which was issued on January 22, 1976.

Section 5.1 of the Standard states as follows; S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

The Federal Register of January 28, 1976 (acopy of which is enclosed) contains a discussion of the Standard, including the following on page 4017 and 4018;

"The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Association) designed the seating system in this Standard for protection from fore and aft crash forces, and considers it necessary that the seats be forward facing to achieve the objective of occupant protection."

In addition to the above objection to the amendment, we would also like to point out that a metropolitan transit authority bus may not also operate as a school bus to transport school children to or from school. Recently the NHTSA amended its definition of a school bus. (A copy of which is enclosed.)

The NHTSA concluded that it was in the public interest to continue to excluded buses used in urban transportation from coverage in the new school bus definition, as had been the case in the prior definition.

The NHTSA has repeated frequently that the States must develop long range plans for achieving full compliance with these requirements within a reasonable period of time. The amendment contained in SB623 takes a big step backwards in complying with federal standards. My office has been told by the NHTSA that any state which moves backward instead of forward in complying with the Federal Safety Standards faces the possibility of having federal funding cut or withheld. To avoid that possibility I respectfully request that the amendments to SB623, to which we have referred, be deleted from the bill.

JERRY L. MERRELL, Ph.D. Director of Highway Safety

ATTACHS.

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

April 9, 1976

Representative Ron Hein

The amendment to Senate Bill Number 623 referred to in the letter written by Mr. Jerry Merrell, Director of Highway Safety, Kansas Department of Transportation, to Representative Don Crumbaker, Chairman, House Committee on Education, does not violate federal law nor would it cause the Kansas Department of Transportation to lose federal money. That amendment would have allowed the secretary of transportation to waive the requirement that all seats in urban transit buses be forward facing when those vehicles are providing school charter service.

In 49 CFR 571.3 (b) the federal definition of "school bus" is given. That provision states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which becomes effective October 26, 1976, provides:

Sec. 5.1 Seating Requirements. School Bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

Since this safety standard speaks to seats in school buses and urban transit vehicles are expressly excluded from the "school bus" definition, there is no federal requirement that all seats in urban mass transit vehicles must be forward facing when those buses are used for school charters.

Furthermore, federal law, by excluding urban transit buses from the school bus definition, did not intend to exclude urban transit vehicles from providing school charter service. In fact, Pupil Transportation Safety Standard No. 17, which sets forth certain requirements with respect to the identification, operation, and maintenance of school buses, specifically recognizes that, because of the dual role they often play, urban transit buses are exempt from certain of those requirements when used for special school route service.

Federal law, then, recognizes the important function served by urban transit vehicles in the overall picture of urban transportation. Although not a "school bus", urban buses are sanctioned to perform school related services.

Senate Bill No. 623, on the other hand, does not recognize the ability of urban transit vehicles to provide school services. By withholding authority from the secretary of transportation to waive seating requirements on urban transit buses when those buses are used for school related services, Kansas may without logical reason, effectively prevent their public transportation systems from working with schools in meeting important public needs.

In view of federal law, Kansas is not prevented from allowing its franchised, publicly supported bus systems the ability to provide school charter services.

Moreover, there is no logical reason to withhold such permission. The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority has identified that urban transit vehicles are not only as safe as, but safer than the traditional "school bus". School related service by the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority is in the public interest.

David L. Ryan Chairman

Robert N. Salmon General Manager

cc: SHAWNEE COUNTY DELEGATION MEMBERS; JERRY MERRELL, DIR. OF SAFETY, KANSAS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION; JIM GRAY, SUPT. OF SCHOOLS, U.S.D. 501

ID: nht76-5.53

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Robert White

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1976, asking how United States importation regulations would affect your plan as a tourist to bring a 1964 Triumph motorcycle into the United States and to ride it to Mexico.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to a motorcycle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Should you wish to import a motorcycle manufactured after that date, as a non-resident of the United States you would be allowed to keep it here for a period of up to one year after entry with the understanding that it would not be sold.

It is our understanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the other Federal agency regulating importation of motor vehicles, has no current regulations for motorcycles.

Brighton Sussex England 30.3.76

Dear Sir

Please could you send me Details concerning any salter or other type of regulation governing the importation of motor bikes int. the U.S.A. I plan to take the bike through to Mexico (Illegible Words) be sold in the U.S. It is a 1964 Triumph 500U of standard construction.

Your cooperation in this matter would be much appreciated

Robert White

ID: nht76-5.54

DATE: 02/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1976, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motorcycles and mini-bikes.

You first asked "if any motorcycles are exempt" from the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. If the configuration of any motorcycle is such that it cannot be licensed for use on the public roads it is considered exempt. One example is a competition cycle intended solely for racing, conveyed by trailer or truck, which has no lights, and is equipped with special tires, and gear ratios rendering it unfit for low speed on-road traffic conditions. Another is the off-road machine with knobby tires, modified suspension and gear ratios, clearly intended for trail riding, hill climbing and the like. Motorcycles with a dual off-road on-road capability are, on the other hand, subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You also asked for our "interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." I enclose a copy of an interpretation issued in 1969 that reflects our views on this matter. As a general rule mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles", while most motorcycles do come within the definition. We consider both the C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90 to be "motor vehicles", even though we understand the latter is intended for dual-purpose use.

Enclosed is a Statement of Compliance for motorcycles.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

GUAM

January 12, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation

Subject: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

I have been receiving inquiries regarding motorcycle imporations by military personnel reassigned from Japan to Guam, specifically, a C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90.

Would your office please advise if any motorcycles are exempt from the subject law excluding those manufactured prior to January 1968. Also, request your interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and is not a "Motor Vehicle" as defined in Section 102 of PL 89-563.

Request a copy of the "Statement of Compliance" be furnished this office.

John J. Kralik -- U.S. Customs Military Advisor

ID: nht76-5.55

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1976, requesting information as to the criteria used to distinguish between a "new" or a "used" chassis, in regard to the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 and 49 CFR Part 568.

You described a situation in which a chassis-cab comes to you "from the field," lacking both a certification label and an incomplete vehicle manual, under the claim that it is used, with the absence of a certification label explained by a statement that "a previous body was mounted and removed by the customer and the vehicle was not presented for resale by a distributor or dealer." You also add that "the vehicle reportedly has had extremely limited or no use."

It seems to us that the facts you are describing constitute a fairly obvious misrepresentation by your customer in order to circumvent the requirements of the standards. Even if the implausible allegation that the customer "mounted and removed" a body were true, it would not remove the requirement for the vehicle to bear a certification label. Our regulations do not limit the labeling requirement to the narrow language of section 114; any vehicle upon completion must be permanently labeled.

Furthermore, for a vehicle to be "used" today, it must be titled and registered under the laws of some State. Your letter does not discuss this, but we would assume that any vehicle whose owner cannot produce title and registration as a completed vehicle was never completed and used within the meaning of our regulations.

For these reasons, we would expect you as a final-stage manufacturer to treat as new a chassis-cab brought to you for completion under the conditions you described. If the chassis-cab were properly certified in a manner that evidenced prior use, or the customer were able to produce legitimate title/registration documentation showing significant previous use as a completed vehicle, the answer would of course be different.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht76-5.56

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Bufkin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 12, 1976, question whether a tire brand name owner is required by @ 574.7(b) of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to establish and maintain specified purchaser information on its tires if the distributor or dealer fails to provide that information as specified by @ 574.8 of the regulation. You also ask whether a tire registration form with dimensions other than those specified in Figure 3 of the regulation may be provided to tire distributors and dealers.

Section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1418(b)) mandates the tire manufacturer's (including brand name owner's) responsibility to establish and maintain the purchaser information, independent of the distributor's or dealer's cooperation:

@ 158(a)(1)

(b) Every manufacturer of motor vehicle or tires shall cause the establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer

Thus, the brand name owner's responsibility is a statutory one, independent of any interpretation of Part 574.

With regard to the size of the tire registration form, @ 574.7(a) permits the use of any size form unless a dealer requests forms that conform to the universal format set forth in Figure 3. The agency has interpreted the requirement for provision of the universal format to not apply in the case of a dealer that sells only one brand of tire.

SINCERELY,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. BUFKIN

November 12, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Compliance Division

I represent a tire brand name owner who has sought my advice on a number of questions under Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping - of your Regulations published in 36 F.R. 1197 on January 26, 1971, and as amended thereafter. Although these Regulations appear to be well written and clear on their face, there are a couple of points on which I desire clarification. My client sells passenger and truck tires to independent businessmen (dealers) who resell them to the consuming public (customer).

1. Does Section 574.7(b) impose upon a brand name owner the obligation to obtain the customer's name, address and tire identification number in those cases where the dealer fails to procure this information? If such a duty is imposed upon the brand name owner, how does he comply? It would be virtually impossible for him to comply where the dealer does not provide this information. My own interpretation of the Regulations is that the brand name owner does not have this duty but simply has a duty to maintain whatever records are forwarded to him from his dealers.

2. My client desires to use a tire registration form which is smaller than the prescribed 7-3/8" x 3-1/4" Universal Format shown in your Figure 3. He would like to use a 5" x 3-1/4" size which will fit easily into a credit card imprinter, thereby enabling the dealer to imprint his name and address without having to write it out in longhand. Do you have any objection to use of a size smaller than the one specified in Figure 3?

3. If you do object to the smaller size registration form, can the brand name owner nevertheless provide the smaller form to his dealers and still not be in violation of the Regulations? A careful reading of Section 574.7(a) imposes a duty on the brand name owner to provide the Universal Format size only to "those dealers who request them". (Emphasis supplied). I gather then that the brand name owner may supply any size to dealers who do not request a form.

Your guidance will be most appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Michael E. Bufkin